Sona Rani vs Chand Singh

Aggarwal, J.—This is an appeal preferred by Sona Rani and others, hereinafter described as "the appellants", directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, dated 6.1.1994. By virtue of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,28.640/- in favour of the claimants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation and it was apportioned as under:-

"1. Sona Rani (Claimant No. 1) Rs. 25,72S/- 2. Baljit Singh minor son (claimant Rs. 25,728/-No. 2) 3. Gurmeet Kaur minor daughter Rs. 25,728/- (claimant No. 3.). 4. Rajwant Kaur minor daughter Rs. 25,728/- (claimant No. 4) 5. Inderjit Singh minor son (claimant Rs. 25,728/- No 5). (ii) Besides the aforesaid amount, the claimants shall also be emitted to proportionate costs and interest in terms of the award."

The relevant facts alleged by the appellant-claimants are that on 6.4.1993 Gurdial Singh and his wife Jaswant Kaur were travelling in a three-wheeler No. HR-07-93S4 driven by Dinesh Kumar. They were coming from the side of Kurukshetra to Pipli. There were also other persons travelling therein. When the three-wheeler reached near Police Lines, Kurukshetra, a! laryana Roadways Bus bearing No. HR-07-A-3076 driven by Chand Singh respondent No. I crossed the three-wheeler. It was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the bus took the bus to the wrong side and dashed into the three wheeler. It was crushed. Gurdiai Singh and Jaswant Kaur succumbed to the injuries. Compensation of Rs. 5 lacs was claimed.

In the written statement, it was denied that there was any rash or negligent driving by the bus driver.

The learned Tribunal had framed the issues and held that the driver of the bus was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. The income of the deceased was taken to be Rs. 1000/-. l/3rd was deducted as personal expenses and dependency was taken at Rs. 670/- per month. After applying the multiplier of 16, the compensation referred to above was awarded. The appellants claimed enhancement of compensation.

The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat suggested the compensation of Rs. 1.97,000/-but it was being objected to by the respondents and, therefore, the respondents were granted the opportunity to file objections.

In the objections filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, it was pointed out that the proposed compensation is excessive and, therefore, they were not agreeable to what was suggested by the Lok Adalat.

The short question that comes up for consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate or not ? It has transpired in evidence that the appellants have failed to prove that the deceased was earning Rs. 4000/- per month. He was cart plier. The leamed Tribunal had taken the income to be Rs. 1000/- per month. We know from the decision of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Raj Rani 1996 (2) RCR 266, that even when there is no documentary proof of income, the claim cannot be rejected. Necessarily, a realistic approach had to be adopted. The findings of this Court are as under :-

"No doubt, the claimants could not produce any documentary evidence to prove the monthly income of the deceased, but the witnesses examined by the claimants orally proved the monthly income of the deceased. In every claim case it is not feasible for the claimants to adduce any documentary evidence with regard to the monthly income of the deceased. The deceased was doing the business of selling footwear. If no documentary evidence is adduced with regard to his monthly income, it cannot be said that the evidence adduced by the claimants to prove this fact was unrealistic and unbelievable. Scanning the evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1500/-. One third is deducted on account of personal expenses of the deceased and the dependency of the claimants is determined at Rs. 1000/- per month. Adopting a multiplier of 12, a claim of Rs. 1,44,000/- is rightly awarded to the claimants on this count. Even this argument has little force that since the father of the deceased is alive and is earning also, the claimants or specially the mother cannot be said to be a dependent of the deceased. After all the family is to be compensated for the loss of the estate. Their earning member expired in this vehicular accident. Hence, in our considered view, the Claims Tribunal has rightly determined the dependency of the claimants and has rightly awarded Rs. 1,46,000/- as compensation."

Identical, indeed, is the position herein. Even if the appellants had failed to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 4000/- permonth, taking stock of the totality of the fact that he was a cart plier, it is not unreasonable to hold that he was earning Rs. 1500/- per month. After all, he was an able bodied person doing normal work. Therefore, the same must be taken to be the income of the deceased. The dependency of the appellants, therefore, would work out to be Rs. 1000/-. Keeping in view the same, the compensation awarded can be as suggested by the Lok Adalat i.e. Rs. 1,92,000/-.

For these reasons, the appeal is accepted and the award of the Tribunal is modified. The compensation is awarded at Rs. 1,92,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the petition. The interest shall be calculated on the balance amount which is yet to be paid. If the earlier amount has not already been paid, the distribution shall be of the amount as already awarded.

Appeal accepted.